Total department, not previously authorized, negative $996,000.

Page 9, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $4.792 million. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of this allocation refers to some disaster assistance for the charter community of K'ahsho Gotine resulting from some flooding last spring during the break-up. There is $1.006 million booked for this. Mr. Chairman, part of the detail here says that up to 85 percent of these costs will be recovered through the federal government's disaster financial assistance arrangement and I wanted to see what kind of certainty there is to recovering up to 85 percent of this. That would be about $850,000, a fair amount of money. Can the Minister provide some comment to the certainty of this recovery, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Voytilla can provide that level of detail. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Voytilla.

Thank you, Mr. Voytilla. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Does the GNWT then have a policy regarding disaster relief or disaster assistance to communities? If we can recover 85 percent from the federal government under compliant costs, is the balance, at least of this expenditure, which would be around $150,000, covered by policy somewhere, or is this a one of a kind issue-by-issue consideration, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for our own policy and the requirements of that, if we can have the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs provide that information.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, our policy as per our agreement with the federal government allows us to recruit up to 85 percent of these expenditures. In the case of Good Hope, it was towards eight houses that were damaged by flood and there was severe contamination by sewer and other chemicals in that area. They were declared unfit for human habitation. We decided to pay for 100 percent of the repairs and allow the homeowners to go back to the houses. These people didn't have HAP houses, so we will be paying for anything over and above 85 percent. Our policy only allows us to recoup 85 percent from the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chair, not to sound mean spirited here, but do we put any onus at all, or any part of the responsibility or cost, however accidental it may be, on the people who own these houses or who have lost property? I think, as I heard the Minister say, we are shouldering 100 percent. Does that include the contents? For instance, vehicles, snow machines, boats or anything else that was lost? Are we still picking up 100 percent of that loss, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we are covering 100 percent of the costs to upgrade the house to bring it to a standard where they can move back into the units. We are also ensuring that the houses are now at the 100 year high water mark. These people that own these houses did not have any other avenue. They lacked the resources to address the situation. I suppose we could have let them go and leave these houses contaminated. They would have been written off, but that didn't change the situation, so we decided to pay for 100 percent of the cost of bringing these houses up to a standard where they could move back in. We are recouping 85 percent of it, so we are shouldering the other portion of it.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. Again, we are going into some policy area here, and maybe it is something that I will take up at another time in more detail, but I am interested in how consistent this policy is across various losses or disasters or people who lose cabins and things due to forest fires, floods and various things of this nature. Unless the Minister cares to offer some comment, does disaster loss of any kind enable the victims to be able to get 100 percent of costs covered by the government? Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as laid out, the process we fall under when it comes to a natural disaster or a disaster in this area where a flood had occurred, the policy and the arrangement of the federal government is that they would cover 85 percent of the cost. Beyond that, normally, again, a person's own household insurance there, that area we would expect would cover the rest of the loss in that area. In this case, as we were informed at the time and made the decision to support the initiative to cover the rest of the cost, is that this case would not have done us any positiveness in the community in the sense that, if we did not do the work to cover the additional costs for repairing homes, we would end up having to put people into new homes in a sense of further either in public housing or new housing through the Housing Corporation program. So it was felt that this case with the covering of 85 percent by the federal government, we could cover the remainder and still put people back into their own homes. The rest of the items they would have to cover on their own. In the process, we were focussing on the homes themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. One or two items further on this page, Mr. Chair, $180,000 of provision for some contamination recovery at the old swimming pool site in Fort Providence. Mr. Chair, I am wondering if this is the end of this story. Are we potentially gearing up for something that is going to have additional costs, Mr. Chair?